POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

CIT's proves a flyover/fly by drawing a powerful inference from a mosaic of facts that at the same time support no contrary inferences1. Chris tries to show that there is such a contrary inference while ignoring or stopping short of Roosevelt Roberts, although he is an integral part of CIT's factual mosaic. Roberts saw a plane flying on the other side immediately after hearing the explosion. Chris is trying to say that an inference other than flyover/flyby can be drawn from the CIT evidence, but he can't ignore this part of the CIT evidence in doing so. Any other inference has to take account of, and then be drawn from, all of the CIT evidence.

2. Chris does make a point about the building damage. IIRC the strongest word that CIT or PFT has used to account for it is that the damage pattern is "inconsistent" with an impact from the North Path. I agree, and think that any layperson who looks at it has to agree. But none of us are experts qualified to make a case that it is not just "inconsistent with" the North Path, but "impossible to reconcile with" the North Path. So we have to sharpen our position here. Here's what I suggest:

( a ) The ASME Building Study was done by qualified experts with access to the relevant information. That Report uses vague and doubtful language to associate the damage with the plane path. ASME says the patttern of toppled columns shows a path of "approximately 42 degrees" which kind of sounds like less than one degree margin of error if you focus on the number and not the deliberate use of the word "approximately". I think it belies any claim to precision, let alone one degree, because they do not state the span of numbers that they intend "42" to be "approximate" to2. Moreover, the Report just assumes that a plane was the violent force that toppled the columns and does nothing to rule out other violent forces such as explosives as the cause. In other words, this Report tries to sound like it is saying something but actually says nothing that is precise. Their "approximate" and our "inconsistent with" have one thing in common - they are precatory words - so their professional and our amateur claims are stated with equal force. I don't see how it proves CIT's theory "impossible" or is otherwise a factor that CIT has to deal with.

( b ) In any case, the building damage pattern is secondary and maybe irrelevant when you consider the entire CIT mosaic and follow it all the way through to Roberts. There's your flyover/fly by, regardless of what kind of damage the building somehow sustained. That damage wasn't done by a plane seen both coming before the explosion and going following the explosion, period

( c ) The government radar data (if it is to be believed) rules out any second plane that could have caused the building damage. The government has never collected any evidence and used it to make an official and express claim that there was any plane on the South Path that could have caused the building damage in the first place. Hi Craig! Me Craig

I agree. And I think it extends beyond their role in 911. Groups like these write Codes such as Building Codes which local governments then adopt in whole and impose on people. It is a great way for these organizations and their members to create business from those who sell the products and services needed to meet the Code requirements. I imagine there are a lot of kickbacks, hookers, golf outings and the like involved.

As to 911, I don't cite them as a source for what they say. I cite then as a source for what they don't say or say poorly or ridiculously. They usually don't say the things or provide the backup that GL's think they do.